KULJINDERPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.1.1989 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge NO. 1 Sri Ganganagar Camp at Sri Karanpur whereby the accused appellant Kujinderpal Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of IPC and the accused Roop Singh has been convicted under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short here referred to as the Act of 1959). The accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh, on conviction, has been sentenced to the period of 5 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of 3 months and the offence under Section 365 IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment of three months.

(2.) FOR a occurrence which took place at 7.30 p.m. On 21.11.1985, the accused Kuljinderpal SIngh was charged for offence under Sections 365 and 392 IPC and the accused Roop Singh was charged for offence under Sections 365, 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Act of 1959. It has been alleged that the accused persons hired one jeep bearing No. PUW 7857 of the complainant Pravindra Kumar. When they reached near Kenal at 36 RB they extorted Rs. 600/ - from the pocket of complainant Pravindra Kumar, and confined him and extorted the jeep also. At the time of occurrence, the accused Roop Singh was having an unlicensed 32 bore pistol which was later on recovered from his possession. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that one co accused Darshan Singh has been absconding and he was not tried by the court.

(3.) AT the very outset of the arguments, learned Counsel Mr. Sandhu has not questioned the conviction of the accused persons and he has merely confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence. While drawing my attention to the age of the accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Kuljinderpal Singh could have been given benefit of probation under the provisions of Offender Act he being below the age of 21 years, but the lower court instead of releasing on probation of good conduct sentenced him to the aforesaid imprisonment and fine. Further, as an alternate, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ends of justice shall be meted out if he is released on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. Shri Sandhu, learned Counsel has submitted that the accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh has been in custody with effect from 11.12.1985, the date of his arrest to 3.3.1989 when he was bailed out by this Court. Thus, he has remained in jail for 3 years 2 months and 23 days. Similarly, the accused Roop Singh who has been convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Act of 1959 and sentenced to period of imprisonment as aforesaid, his period of sentence can also be reduced for the period already undergone as he has been in custody for a period of 4 1/2 months during trial.